On 10/21/24 15:25, Paolo Abeni wrote:
Hi,
On 10/16/24 20:52, David Wei wrote:
@@ -6503,6 +6511,41 @@ void napi_busy_loop(unsigned int napi_id,
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(napi_busy_loop);
+void napi_execute(unsigned napi_id,
+ void (*cb)(void *), void *cb_arg)
+{
+ struct napi_struct *napi;
+ void *have_poll_lock = NULL;
Minor nit: please respect the reverse x-mas tree order.
+
+ guard(rcu)();
Since this will land into net core code, please use the explicit RCU
read lock/unlock:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst#L387
I missed the doc update, will change it, thanks
+ napi = napi_by_id(napi_id);
+ if (!napi)
+ return;
+
+ if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT))
+ preempt_disable();
+
+ for (;;) {
+ local_bh_disable();
+
+ if (napi_state_start_busy_polling(napi, 0)) {
+ have_poll_lock = netpoll_poll_lock(napi);
+ cb(cb_arg);
+ local_bh_enable();
+ busy_poll_stop(napi, have_poll_lock, 0, 1);
+ break;
+ }
+
+ local_bh_enable();
+ if (unlikely(need_resched()))
+ break;
+ cpu_relax();
Don't you need a 'loop_end' condition here?
As you mentioned in 14/15, it can indeed spin for long and is bound only
by need_resched(). Do you think it's reasonable to wait for it without a
time limit with NAPI_STATE_PREFER_BUSY_POLL? softirq should yield napi
after it exhausts the budget, it should limit it well enough, what do
you think?
The only ugly part is that I don't want it to mess with the
NAPI_F_PREFER_BUSY_POLL in busy_poll_stop()
busy_poll_stop() {
...
clear_bit(NAPI_STATE_IN_BUSY_POLL, &napi->state);
if (flags & NAPI_F_PREFER_BUSY_POLL) {
napi->defer_hard_irqs_count = READ_ONCE(napi->dev->napi_defer_hard_irqs);
timeout = READ_ONCE(napi->dev->gro_flush_timeout);
if (napi->defer_hard_irqs_count && timeout) {
hrtimer_start(&napi->timer, ns_to_ktime(timeout), HRTIMER_MODE_REL_PINNED);
skip_schedule = true;
}
}
}
Is it fine to set PREFER_BUSY_POLL but do the stop call without? E.g.
set_bit(NAPI_STATE_PREFER_BUSY_POLL, &napi->state);
...
busy_poll_stop(napi, flags=0);
--
Pavel Begunkov